Wrestling Forum banner

101 - 117 of 117 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
It helps Undertaker and HBK having that WWE/F engine behind you your whole career (at least with Undertaker AS Undertaker, he was in WCW before that as a nobody) Remember Bret would not have left WWF if Vince didn't come to him and say "we can't afford you" and he told Bret to go to WCW, then he screwed him on the way out ending any chance for a return until it was way too late in 2010. Then the Owen accident happened so bridge burned. WCW booked him poorly and Goldberg kicked him in the head and ended his career. So he's a little bit of victim of circumstance. I think if he had stayed in WWF and got to face Rock, Angle, Jericho maybe even Brock and Cena if he stayed healthy and wrestled into his 40's he would have been a bigger star than he is instead he's remembered as being the guy in WWF when they were struggling. I'm not saying he deserves 0% blame for that, but WWF was just horrible from 93-96 and remember Undertaker and HBK were both there too, and none of the 3 could save it because overall it was horrible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
It helps Undertaker and HBK having that WWE/F engine behind you your whole career (at least with Undertaker AS Undertaker, he was in WCW before that as a nobody) Remember Bret would not have left WWF if Vince didn't come to him and say "we can't afford you" and he told Bret to go to WCW, then he screwed him on the way out ending any chance for a return until it was way too late in 2010. Then the Owen accident happened so bridge burned. WCW booked him poorly and Goldberg kicked him in the head and ended his career. So he's a little bit of victim of circumstance. I think if he had stayed in WWF and got to face Rock, Angle, Jericho maybe even Brock and Cena if he stayed healthy and wrestled into his 40's he would have been a bigger star than he is instead he's remembered as being the guy in WWF when they were struggling. I'm not saying he deserves 0% blame for that, but WWF was just horrible from 93-96 and remember Undertaker and HBK were both there too, and none of the 3 could save it because overall it was horrible.
HBK saved the WWF, had it not for him the WWF would have gone out of business from the nWo and had he be in Brett's place in 92 to 96, WWF would be in a much better place financially.

Even you would have to agree that HBK's 96 face run would be received much better than 92 to 95 face Bret within the Context of their times, that's not even a debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
HBK saved the WWF, had it not for him the WWF would have gone out of business from the nWo and had he be in Brett's place in 92 to 96, WWF would be in a much better place financially.

Even you would have to agree that HBK's 96 face run would be received much better than 92 to 95 face Bret within the Context of their times, that's not even a debate.
No I don't agree with anything you said. The year he was champion was one of the worst years in WWF history numbers wise. Like Bret I will not say that's 100% his fault, but to give him credit for saving the WWF against the NWO is ridiculous. I don't know what you're basing that off of maybe your personal opinion but the numbers don't support it.

I don't really see anyone but you claiming HBK was a bigger star than Bret between 93-96, only that HBK surpassed Bret in the 2000's after he came back from his retirement.

But the only thing that saved WWF from NWO was Stone Cold Steve Austin. Without him instead of Vince buying WCW, WCW likely would have bought WWF before WCW self destructed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
With Roman Reigns current success it becomes absolutely clear they should have chosen Luger in 1994.

Roman is point for point equal to Cena in Charisma, storytelling, being an actual draw (an argument that cannot be debunked or disputed) and is more beneficial to the business relative to his time than Mr Pink and black was relative to his time.

Luger being pushed like Reigns would have led to maybe a polarizing crowd but an audience more invested. Reigns has fewer moves than Luger but again he is equal to Cena metric to metric and Cena surpassed Hart and HBK, that makes Roman better than both by default.

Yes Transformers franchise is better than the godfather because it made more money in the end and that's what matters.. Numbers and Statistics cannot be disputed or argued.

That's why I am concerned with the BH fans here.. It must Suck losing every argument because the statistics have never been in BH favor and it can always be used as a deus exachina to bitchslap all possible counter arguments and you couldn't do anything about it.. Again I ask would it be better to reconsider your preferences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
I liked Bret as a wrestler a lot. In terms of stardom only, I dunno, Taker for me trumps them both but HBK/Bret are tied. I suppose that does explain the real life heat a lot if they saw each other as equal too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
With Roman Reigns current success it becomes absolutely clear they should have chosen Luger in 1994.

Roman is point for point equal to Cena in Charisma, storytelling, being an actual draw (an argument that cannot be debunked or disputed) and is more beneficial to the business relative to his time than Mr Pink and black was relative to his time.

Luger being pushed like Reigns would have led to maybe a polarizing crowd but an audience more invested. Reigns has fewer moves than Luger but again he is equal to Cena metric to metric and Cena surpassed Hart and HBK, that makes Roman better than both by default.

Yes Transformers franchise is better than the godfather because it made more money in the end and that's what matters.. Numbers and Statistics cannot be disputed or argued.

That's why I am concerned with the BH fans here.. It must Suck losing every argument because the statistics have never been in BH favor and it can always be used as a deus exachina to bitchslap all possible counter arguments and you couldn't do anything about it.. Again I ask would it be better to reconsider your preferences?
I see it that you talk about 95% nonsense and say stuff like "can't be disputed or argued" which doesn't change anything when talking fiction. HBK was never a draw other than DX, which he left before they became faces, Roman Reigns is not a draw he just happens to be the one getting pushed while WWE has a huge built in hardcore fanbase, and Lex Luger was never a draw and wouldn't have changed anything if they gave him the belt. I do like the comparison though of Luger and Reigns they're both bland characters with little to no charisma and wrestle in boring matches, so that is a good comparison but not because "they're both draws". I mean people call Bret bland these two take the cake.

But I'm not trying to argue Bret is a huge draw either. The only huge draws were guys like Hogan, Flair, Austin, Rock, heck I'll throw in Goldberg and Cena even though I was never a fan. The rest of the guys needed the show to be not just good at the top but also a good undercard. Those that I named people would buy a ticket just to see that guy even if the rest of the show was a puppet show, most other wrestlers they went to see the overall show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
In terms of their matches to the newer audience, yes. Unless you watched Bret in early to mid 90's and remember him, unlike Taker and HBK, Bret Hart is now clearly a thing of past who is long forgotten unless one puts in effort and sees his best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
I think that if you're considering their careers until 2000, since Bret was robbed of part of his prime, Bret is the greatest amongst the three, with HBK coming in 2nd.

However, if you consider their whole body of work, than it is UT, HBK,Bret.

PS: Bret is far and away my favourite between this 3, even though I'm a fan of them 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Would Cena have been a star without being rounded to the gills? What about Hulk?
Let me break it you, looks is all that matters in pro wrestling, wrestling is completely negligible, Tha awesome Rusev vs Lashley feud that drew numbers (something HBK and Hitman never did) WITHOUT needing a blowoff match to end the fwud proved that more and more needs to copy this formula and make it the standard.

Soul Rex has a Beautiful assessment as to why Taker vs Giant Gonzales is viewed and SHOULD BE VIEWED in the same Light as Bret vs Austin.

Braun circling outside the ring, shoulder locking everyone that moves is more over than Bret vs Mr. Perfect

Otis doing the caterpillar is more over than Bret vs Owen (both WM 10 and the cage match) , Steamboat vs Flair, Savage vs Steamboat

Ezekiel Jackson just standing in the middle of the ring for an hour doing nothing but flexing his muscles would be more over than Bret vs HBK's greatest matches

Roman clocking his hand and screaming oooooooah is more noteworthy than Bret vs Bulldog (both wembley stadium and iyh)

And even Lars Sullivan Roaring endlessly or making those Unpopular comments while hypocritically also being what he criticizes turns more heads than Bret vs Austin.

And I am once again putting it out there that Bret isn't a draw and you cannot defeat or debunk that argument because it's statistics. The whole world is about statistics, that's how everyone (you included) should think because those are facts.
 
101 - 117 of 117 Posts
Top